he white paper response

White Paper Response

imperialcollegeunion.org/hepolicyimperialcollegeunion.org

Response to the 2011 Higher Education White Paper

Contents

Introduction 3

Background 4

The white paper 5

Early Repayment 6

Outline 6

Mechanism A 6

Mechanism B 6

Hybrid mechanism 7

Imperial student opinion 8

Recommendations

Key Information Set 10

Introduction 10

Our view of the KIS 10

Recommendations 10

Other proposals 17

Conclusion 21

Appendix 22

PLEASE NOTEThis is Imperial College Union’s individual response to the Higher Education White Paper Students at the Heart of the System, and is not the collective response of the Aldwych Group of students’ unions.

For the Aldwych Group’s response, please see www.aldwychgroup.org.

OUR WORKTo follow all of Imperial College Union’s work on Higher Education policy, including blogposts, tweets, consultations, policies and papers, visit www.imperialcollegeunion.org/hepolicy.


imperialcollegeunion.org/hepolicy

IntroductionScott HeathPresidentE: [email protected]: 020 7594 8060X: 58061

Jason ParmarDeputy President (Education)E: [email protected]: 020 7594 8060X: 45646

As the representatives of Imperial College’s Student Body, we are often invited to feed into Government consultations. Last year this was seen with the Browne Review and in this document we are responding to the Higher Education White Paper, Students at the Heart of the System.

To provide comprehensive understanding of student views we conducted a survey in August that targeted all years and departments. Furthermore we attended several conferences to discuss elements of the White Paper, engaged in discussions with other Russell Group students’ unions and, most importantly, spoke to Imperial Students about their thoughts on this matter.

Put frankly, the White Paper doesn’t have the capacity to be as reforming in the Higher Education sector as the introduction of the £9,000 fee cap was; however it is intended as a supplementary measure to that change.

We, as a Union, support the idea of introducing a market in Higher Education that drives up quality; we have all seen how competition can create the demand for a better product.

We are however wary that measures implemented to force a ‘market-based demand’ will never be as effective as allowing a perfect market to form and as

Andrew KeenanRepresentation CoordinatorE: [email protected]: 020 7594 5387X: 45387

such we do disagree with parts of this White Paper.

The Union’s response will look at all key areas of the White Paper, evaluating where we agree and disagree.

We hope you enjoy reading it.

White Paper Responseimperialcollegeunion.org/hepolicy

Background

2012

1963

1967

1997

1996

1998

2003

2009

2010

2011

1980s

1969

1992

The Robbins Report recommends a dramatic increase in student numbers, and declares that places shoud be ‘available to all who [are] qualified for them by ability and attainment’ - that is, rather than background or wealth.

Student numbers reach 197,000.

Between 1960 and 1969, the number of UK universities increases from 20 to 43 in the wake of the Robbins report.

The number of students continues to increase at a greater rate than funding; only three universities are founded between 1969 and 1992.

The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 allows polytechnics to become universities; the number of UK universities almost doubles, from 46 to 84, practically overnight.

Under pressure from universities who feel they are underfunded, the Conservative government sets up the Dearing review, which was timed to report after the next election.

Labour win the 1997 election; the Dearing Report is released, which recommends the introduction of tuition fees.

Labour introduce a tuition fee of £1,000 a year, payable up-front, which rises with inflation. Student numbers reach approximately two million.

Labour introduce a tuition fee capped at £3,000 a year, rising with inflation, to be paid back by graduates earning over £15,000 a year.

Labour set up the Browne Review to look at future university funding, to report after the 2010 election.

A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition form a Government after the 2010 election; the Browne Report is released, recommending uncapped fees. The Government chooses to cap fees at £9,000 instead.

Students at the Heart of the System White Paper released.

£9,000 per year fees come into effect for new students.

The White Paper

The White Paper Students at the Heart of the System can be found on the website of the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, www.bis.gov.uk.

It contains six chapters which list the Government’s proposals for reforming higher education in a number of specific themes:

1. Sustainable and fair funding2. Well-informed students driving

teaching excellence3. A better student experience and

better-qualified graduates4. A diverse and responsive sector

5. Improved social mobility through fairer access

6. A new, fit-for-purpose regulatory framework

Our response addresses the major proposals and questions which the Government has put forward, which include :• early repayment rules• key information sets• changes to the student quota

system

We will also comment on a number of smaller issues in this response.


Early Repayment

Once a student graduates, they will begin to pay off their student debt, usually through their wages. Under the proposed system, 9% of their earnings over £21,000 will be taken monthly and used to pay down their debt.

“Early repayment” of student debt, or voluntarily paying more than the 9% minimum, is an important issue in the White Paper. There is a debate over the variable rates of interest and caps which should govern early repayments, and what constitutes a fair system.

There are three early repayment mechanisms proposed as seen below.

Mechanism AEarly repayment charges for high payers

An annual limit would be set on payments, and a levy would be charged on payments above the limit.

Example: 5% levy on payments totalling over £3,000 a year.

Arguments for:• Progressive, as it assumes

that those making large-scale repayments “have access to family or personal resources due to pre-existing wealth or high earnings”

• Not based on earnings• Disincentive for early repayments

due to levy.

Arguments against:• Penalises high earners who want to

pay down debt early• Does not distinguish between early

repayments due to earnings, or due to other sources of wealth

Mechanism BEarly repayment charges for high earners

Early repayment would be penalised for those earning over a certain threshold, as a ‘proxy for their personal gain from higher education’.

“I think that if a student can

repay off their loan they should

be allowed to at any point

in time. There should not be

a cap on repayments and

there should be no increase

in interest with income - it’s

penalising people who work

hard to get themselves into a

position that pays better.”

Fourth year UK student

Arguments for:• Early repayment to be penalised

based on earnings. Those on higher incomes (eg over £41,000) would pay a levy on any voluntary payment.

• Seeks to maintain progressiveness by ensuring high earners contribute to running of student finance system

• Allows low earners to make voluntary repayments without penalty, but not high earners

Arguments against:• Unfair on high earners who want to

pay their debt off early• Does not help Government finances

as it discourages early payment of debts

Hybrid MechanismCombination of A and B

Penalties would be levied on voluntary payments made by those earning over a threshold, and also if they pay over a certain percentage or absolute amount of their remaining debt.

Arguments for:• Catches low earners with other

sources of wealth as well as high earners

Arguments against:• Penalises high earners who want to

pay off their debts early• Discourages early payment of debt


Early Repayment continued

Imperial Student Opinion696 respondents, Aug-Sep 2011

A survey was conducted of Imperial students, ranging from students commencing study in October 2011 to PhD students in the writing-up stage.

The weight of Imperial student opinion was not in favour of a ‘progressive’ system as described in the White Paper, but rather for a system that did not penalise those who want to make voluntary overpayments made possible due to earnings. Students also opposed the idea of higher interest rates for graduates on higher salaries.

“Increasing the level of interest

someone pays based on what

they earn is wrong. This is a

loan from the government to

invest in the future work force

and economy, not a money

making scheme.”

Third year UK student



“I don’t think it’s fair to charge

higher interest on loans for

people who make more money,

then stop them being able to

pay large lump sums to pay it

off quickly.”

Second year UK student

However, students were moderately supportive of levies charged for overpayments due to other sources of wealth, such as parental support. It is the belief of Imperial College Union that education is a way to break the link between a student’s background and their future, and as such we believe that earnings-based payments should not be penalised, but payments due to background can be if necessary.

Imperial graduates have the highest average starting salary of all UK universities. Many of them view tuition fees as an investment allowing them to study a rigorous scientific discipline, and they do not support any system which

will charge them at a greater rate for making such an investment.


Key Information Set

Introduction The Key Information Set (KIS) is a proposal to create a standard ‘suite’ of statistics and facts about every course offered by every university. The resulting information will be publicly and freely available to students and other groups such as parents, employers and the media.

The KIS is part of a wider effort to increase the amount of information available about the higher education sector in order to assist prospective

students during the application process. Other suggested datasets include:

• Anonymised information about the teaching qualifications, fellowships and expertise of teaching staff.

• Breakdowns of class sizes, teaching modes (lectures, tutorials, one-on-one teaching) within each course.

• Breakdowns at a university-wide level of how tuition fee money is spent.

• The socio-economic background of applicants, whether successful or unsuccessful.



A mock KIS has been created to illustrate potential questions and layout, available in the appendix to this report.

Our view of the KIS

We support the idea behind the KIS, of offering detailed, objective facts and figures to students so they can compare and contrast institutions and make an informed decision of which places to apply to. We consider this a necessary and welcome improvement upon the poorly implemented Unistats website and the subjective promotional materials produced by universities themselves.

We also recognise that the KIS and other datasets will provide a significant challenge to implement as universities may not have all of the necessary information to hand or easily gatherable. However, we see the up-front, one-

off difficulty of preparing for the KIS as a price worth paying by universities in order to assist the decision-making process of students, and foster genuine competition between institutions on course standards and offerings.

We have a number of suggestions of how the KIS as currently suggested can be improved, and how the information can be most effectively marshalled and presented to suit its audience.

KIS Recommendations

The KIS is currently divided into five sections, which we will address in turn.

Student Satisfaction

The sample design of the Student Satisfaction section is below. We are in general happy with the contents and


Key Information Set continued

‘data design’ of this section.

Graduate Employment

Additional datasets we would recommend for this section include:

• Breakdowns of the percentage of graduates who are working in a job directly related to the course.

Financial

To be truly useful to students, the Financial section needs to offer a more detailed description of the true costs of working & living at a particular university, as well as a complete explanation of the various financial support methods offered.

On accommodation, we recommend that a box or distribution chart of rents for both private and university housing be shown. A simple range of prices, such as “£7,000 to £9,600” can be highly misleading as there is rarely a smooth gradient of prices across that range available.

Additionally, the number of units offered by the university at each range must also be shown, as in many cases the beds available at a higher price far outnumber those available at a lower price, but the lower prices are given prominence.

On bursaries and financial support, we

Accommodation at Imperial

A detailed breakdown of accommodation price and availability is required as there are not equal spreads of price, location and number of spaces available.

For example, at Imperial, prices range from £2,156 to £8,867 per annum for rooms; the lower being one bed in a triple room in Fisher Hall, a twenty minute walk from the South Kensington campus, and the higher for a deluxe single in Southside & Eastside Halls, thirty seconds away.

The number of beds at the higher end of the range far outnumber the number available at the lower end. Several hundred beds are available in the Southside & Eastside Halls complex, while the numbers available at levels covered by the proposed maintenance allowance are far fewer.

With wide variations in availability as shown above, a simple range of prices is not enough for students to make a genuinely informed choice if accommodation prices are a major factor when picking their university.

recommend that the KIS show what is available to support students with both long and short term financial issues. This can include:



• The size of the annual Hardship Fund, and the number of students it assists each year.

• The percentage of students receiving financial support such as fee waivers.

Learning & Assessment

We believe there are a number of extra pieces of information relating to teaching & assessment which would assist students in picking their course.

These are:

• Details of the percentage of each course spent in various ‘teaching modes’ - such as lectures, labs, tutorials, one-on-one teaching, self-directed study, field trips, etc.; and

the approximate cohort size of each one.

This would allow prospective students to cross-compare courses from different universities, and see which ones offer better teaching in relation to the student’s personal preference.

For example, two courses could be considered by a student which offer the same total number of ‘contact hours’, but one offers a greater percentage of small-cohort tutorials rather than large lectures. If the student would prefer to learn in a small group with closer contact with a professor or tutor, this information would help him or her decide.

We consider that universities will have this information available, even if not



easily gatherable, as the design of each course is set out well in advance of each academic year beginning, with room, staffing and teaching resource allocated often without significant change from year to year.

• The weighting of each year towards the student’s final degree grade.

This would also allow prospective students to compare multiple university courses against their preferred methods of examination.

For example, a student who prefers to be marked on coursework rather than on timed ‘exam’ assessments can select a course that puts greater weighting over the length of the degree on coursework when calculating the final grade.

Additionally, students can pick courses that suit their preferences regarding the importance of the first and second year to their final grade. If a student would prefer their first year to be less important than their second, in case they are concerned about the transition to university or they have not studied for a long time, they can choose a course that fits.

We do not believe that students selecting course on the basis of the teaching & assessment methods involved is effectively allowing students to pick the ‘easiest’ course. Accreditation bodies

and the QAA should maintain standards of course quality to prevent a ‘race to the bottom’ on difficulty by universities struggling to attract students. Rather, we see the introduction of choice for students in this area as an opportunity for students to work in their preferred method - as not all students can be expected to learn the same material in the same way.

Students’ Union

We consider this area of the KIS to be remarkably weak in the information offered, giving only the percentage of students who view the Students’ Union positively. If the KIS is intended to offer a snapshot of what a given university’s SU and student body offers, there are multiple datasets which can be used to demonstrate the strength or weakness of its activities.

The vitality of a student body can be extremely important to prospective students, not just to offer a social life, but extra-curricular activities, employability, opportunities for personal development, and the various other aspects of university life that fall under the term ‘student experience’.

Suggested datasets include:

• The percentage of students who voted in the last Sabbatical Officer election.



This indicates how popular and relevant to students’ lives the SU has been recently; active SUs with a wide range of successful activities, clubs, societies, and campaigns see higher than average election turnouts.

• The number of clubs and societies affiliated to the students’ union, and the number and percentage of students who have membership of a club or society.

This allows students to see what opportunities will be available to them, and indicates whether a student body has a busy social scene in which students participate, or is lacking. This is particularly important for students who are keen on sport or similar interests

such as drama or debating, and for those not willing to participate in the alcohol-based activities usually offered to students by the private sector.

• The annual grant or subvention given from the university to the students’ union, expressed as an absolute figure and as a per-head figure.

This shows the support the students’ union receives from its parent institution, which is important when considering which university will offer the best student experience.

• Student satisfaction with the students’ union.

Available already as part of the National Student Survey, this will demonstrate


which unions have successfully connected with their members and which have not. This figure on its own is completely insufficient for any assessment of a union’s success, as students interact with the union in many ways - from activities, to bars, shops, clubs, advice centres, welfare officers, restaurants, and political campaigns.

Many of these datasets are already compiled by each students’ union and are gathered nationally by the National Union of Students. We therefore do not see any difficulty for students’ unions in providing this information.

General comments

We recommend that the data collected by each university for the KIS be presented in as accessible a format as possible, to encourage students and programmers to use the information in as many ways as they can think of. We ask that universities not be allowed to

make their information ‘proprietary’, as otherwise they could potentially prevent information from being put into the public domain.

We also ask that the data be presented in a way that allows maximum ‘comparibility’, so that a prospective student can compare a single piece of information - such as satisfaction rates for library resources - for multiple courses across multiple universities with ease.

We recommend that the Government educate parents, as well as prospective students, about the KIS as part of efforts to end misconceptions about the costs and benefits of university education. UCAS and careers advisers encourage prospective students to use the KIS as much as possible, in order to realise its potential as the best way for students to exercise their individual choice and preferences when making their university application.



Other proposals

The White Paper contains a large number of other proposals for higher education reform, on areas as diverse as VAT relief for collaborations, to changes to student quotas, to questioning the use of the word ‘university’ itself.

We give brief responses to a number of these proposals below.

Linking teaching ability of staff to the promotion process

We support proposals to link the teaching ability of staff to their promotion chances, as already in practice at Imperial; we believe the pendulum has swung too far in favour of research success when promoting staff, and effective teaching skills have been undervalued, to the detriment of students.

Introduction of a post-qualification admission system

The Union recognises the disparity between the predicted grades of students in state education and those privately educated - there is a greater tendency for state-educated students to receive predicted grades that are lower what they achieve.

The introduction of PQA does have the potential to reverse some of these cases, allowing the ‘surprise’ high-achiever to apply to Universities such as Imperial with direct proof they can attain the

grades.However such a large overhaul, which would mean: • Changing the exam times for upper-

sixth students• Forcing Universities to start the

admissions cycle near final exams and the end of the academic year

• Incurring a large level of costs to the sector

This may not benefit students as much as solving the cause of the problem: poorly predicted grades.

We would prefer the Government to directly address this problem as well as the effects it has.

Encouraging Universities to look at more detailed academic data, removing the restraints on teachers in state schools that prevent accurate predictions and penalising private schools who over-predict are measures more likely to effect the small number of students who are caught out by poor predictions than risking failure on such a large project.

More direct proof of the benefits of PQA would also be beneficial to wholly assessing the necessity to move.

Encouraging collaboration between institutions and employers in the design and delivery of courses


We fully support this idea, as the input of employers and trade groups is crucial to ensuring that graduates are suitably equipped to go straight into work with minimal retraining or upskilling. In STEM areas (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), this is particularly important for economic growth and international competitiveness.

Furthermore, experts from industrial organisations can provide background information which is enlightening and informative for any future employee. At research-intensive Universities academics can often see delivering lectures as a distraction to research whereas professionals from research-led organisations can deliver informative and interactive lectures that put research into real-world perspectives. Such opportunities can be beneficial for both students and the organisations and we fully support greater input from these sectors.

Other proposals continued

“All firsts were not created

equal; an employer cannot

know which first is a good first

and which is not.”


Reviewing the title ‘University’

We do not consider allowing smaller institutions to use the title ‘University’ rather than ‘University College’ a priority; we would recommend attempting to end any prejudice against institutions using different titles instead. If school pupils are meant to see apprenticeships, college places, university places, work and entrepreneurship as equally valid paths after school, we should not encourage behaviour that places the word ‘university’ over other terms.

Changing the degree qualification system

We support the idea of modifying the degree qualification system to make it of more use to graduates and employers.

The current system of firsts, upper seconds, etc. was supported by our students, but was of decreasing popularity as cohorts progressed, with final year, master’s and PhD students being least supportive.

We believe that a more detailed grading system is necessary for enabling employers to differentiate between large numbers of graduates with firsts and upper seconds. Possible methods involve releasing a student’s module grades as standard rather than upon request, and offering a percentage or ‘GPA’ for a student’s overall degree mark.



“I think that a ranking would

be a bad idea as people would

no longer work together, but

against each other.”


The American method of ranking each student within their class, i.e. 6th out of 120, was not supported by our students, who feared that it would tip students into direct competition with each other and have a negative impact on the learning environment.

Reduction of VAT barriers for collaboration between institutes

We fully support this as we recognise the importance of inter-university collaboration not only to research, but to research-led teaching, innovation, and the most efficient use of scarce research funds.

We do not support the argument that an increasingly competitive marketplace between universities for students would be detrimental to inter-university collaboration; instead, universities could

potentially attract students if they offer the opportunity to use modern research facilities and to work with fellow students and eminent researchers from different institutions.

Changing the student quota system for AAB students

We support this as an initial step towards the removal of the quota system, and the introduction of a market amongst universities in attracting students through


Other proposals continued

quality and value.We recognise that this may reduce the number of students from widening participation backgrounds attending Imperial and encourage the Government, and the HE sector to offer further assistance to FE institutions to improve the learning experience and outcomes of students from such backgrounds.

‘Auctioning’ 20,000 student places

We also support this as part of the staged effort to end the quota system, as above, and also because of the downward pressure on costs and fees it places on participating universities.

Introduction of a National Student Survey (NSS) for postgraduate taught courses

We do not support the introduction of a fully-fledged NSS for PGT courses for the following reasons:

• The turnover rate of PGT courses is higher than that of UG courses, meaning information is less comparable across years.

• Most institutions have more PGT courses than UG courses, with smaller cohorts. This makes it difficult to get enough responses for feedback to be trustworthy, and the

result is fragmentary and difficult to compare.

Instead, we recommend that the existing PRES and PTES surveys, which operate on an institutional level, be reviewed in order to boost each university’s ability to consult their PG population and develop methods for gathering feedback.

Introduction of funding for postgraduate taught students

We support the idea of funding for postgraduate taught students using a similar system to the incoming undergraduate system.

While we recognise this would be a financial burden on Government, at present the cost of taught postgraduate (PGT) courses, for which financial support is practically non-existent, makes postgraduate qualifications a socially exclusionary step of career progression.

Student charters

We do not see student charters as a priority; if they are intended to provide an outline of what a prospective student can expect from an institution, the KIS and existing enrolment agreements & conduct standards should be sufficient.



Conclusion

Imperial College Union believes that if introduced and managed properly a market in higher education can be used to drive up quality in teaching and learning without an adverse effect on students. The White Paper sets out a large number of proposals to build upon the increase in fee levels, designed to improve choice and make the sector more responsive to the needs and requirements of prospective students.

We do not fully support all of these proposals, but we view a number of them as steps in the right direction for the future of the sector.

We are particularly supportive of the Key Information Set and if our suggested amendments are put into practice it has the potential to be an extremely popular tool for helping people make informed choices about what and where to study.

On early repayment, our students reject

the idea of penalising those who repay early due to high wages. If access to education is a way for people to break the link between their parents and their own future earnings, we do not see a rationale for punishing those who will pay off their debt to Government early.

On the wide range of other proposals, our view ranges from opposing the Government’s unwillingness to financially support prospective Master’s students (who otherwise could not afford to study) to calling for a degree classification system that enables employers to differentiate between graduates without creating a damaging atmosphere of competition for students.

We welcome any comments on the response we have laid out here and look forward to engaging with the Government’s ongoing proposals for students and Higher Education in the future.


Appendix: Sample Key Information Set

Mock KIS: how the KIS might be presented

Imperial College UnionBeit QuadranglePrince Consort RoadLondon SW7 2BB

Tel: 020 7594 8060Fax: 020 7594 8065Email: [email protected]: @icunion imperialcollegeunion.org

he white paper response

Documents

white paper responsepage

white paper doesnt

imperial students

unions response

higher education policy

higher education sector

number of students

imperial student opinion